IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 359 

Providing that the House of Representatives disagrees with the majority 

opinion in Obergefell et al. v. Hodges, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 10, 2015 

Mr. KING of Iowa (for himself, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. BABIN, Mr. HARRIS, Mr. HUELSKAMP, Mr. YOHO, and Mr. GOHMERT) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Providing that the House of Representatives disagrees with 

the majority opinion in Obergefell et al. v. Hodges, and 

for other purposes. 

Whereas the traditional definition of marriage is a union between one man and one woman; 

Whereas the opinion of the majority of the Supreme Court 

in United States v. Windsor, written by Justice Kennedy, 

affirmed that ‘‘The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the ‘[p]rotection 

of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of 

marital responsibilities.’ ’’; 

Whereas the opinion of the majority of the Supreme Court 

in Obergefell et al. v. Hodges et al. (in this resolution reVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:06 Jul 10, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR359.IH HR359

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 359 IH 

ferred to as ‘‘Obergefell’’) distorts the meaning of the 

word ‘‘marriage’’ to create an unconstitutional right to 

same-sex marriage; 

Whereas the opinion of the majority in Obergefell distorts the 

word ‘‘liberty’’ in the Due Process Clause of the 14th 

amendment to the Constitution; 

Whereas the dissenting opinions in Obergefell uphold the traditional definition of marriage as a union between one 

man and one woman; 

Whereas the dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Roberts in 

Obergefell states that ‘‘[T]his Court is not a legislature. 

Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of 

no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have 

power to say what the law is, not what it should be.’’; 

Whereas the dissenting opinion by Justice Scalia in 

Obergefell states that ‘‘With each decision of ours that 

takes from the People a question properly left to them— 

with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, 

but on the ‘reasoned judgment’ of a bare majority of this 

Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our 

impotence.’’; 

Whereas the dissenting opinion by Justice Thomas in 

Obergefell upholds the traditional interpretation of the 

word ‘‘liberty’’ in the 14th amendment to the Constitution as it was understood by the drafters upon the adoption of the 14th amendment and properly outlines the 

historical understanding of the word ‘‘liberty’’ from its 

understanding in the Magna Carta, through William 

Blackstone, to the Founders, and to the drafters of the 

14th amendment; 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 359 IH 

Whereas the dissenting opinion by Justice Alito in Obergefell 

states that ‘‘Today’s decision usurps the constitutional 

right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the 

traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will 

also have other important consequences. It will be used 

to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the 

new orthodoxy.’’; 

Whereas the opinion of the majority in Obergefell is a clear 

case of judicial activism; and 

Whereas the majority of the Supreme Court in Obergefell 

acted legislatively, which is an unconstitutional violation 

of the principle of separation of powers: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved, That— 

2 (1) the House of Representatives— 

3 (A) disagrees with the majority opinion in 

4 Obergefell and its holdings that the 14th 

5 amendment to the Constitution requires States 

6 to license marriages between same-sex couples 

7 and requires States to recognize same-sex mar8 riages performed out-of-State; and 

9 (B) agrees with the four dissenting opin10 ions in Obergefell, which uphold the traditional 

11 definition of marriage as a union between one 

12 man and one woman and the original meaning 

13 of the 14th amendment; and 

14 (2) it is the sense of the House of Representa15 tives that— 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

•HRES 359 IH 

1 (A) the traditional definition of marriage is 

2 a union between one man and one woman; 

3 (B) the majority opinion in Obergefell un4 constitutionally and indefensibly distorts the 

5 definition of marriage; 

6 (C) the States may refuse to be bound by 

7 the holding in Obergefell; 

8 (D) the States are not required to license 

9 same-sex marriage or recognize same-sex mar10 riages performed in other States; and 

11 (E) individuals, businesses, churches, reli12 gious groups, and other faith-based organiza13 tions are encouraged, empowered, and protected 

14 to exercise their faith without fear of legal or 

15 government interference. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS